Tuesday, January 11, 2011

What happened to Epiphanytide?, or The hypocrisy of the Liturgical Renewal

The public Epiphany of Christ

“One of the weaknesses of the
postconciliar liturgical reform can doubtless be traced to the armchair
strategy of academics, drawing up things on paper which, in fact, would
presuppose years of organic growth. The
most blatant example of this is the reform of the Calendar: those
responsible simply did not realize how much the various annual feasts had
influenced Christian people's relation to time […] they ignored a fundamental
law of religious life.” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Feast of Faith, 81-82 (published by
Ignatius Press).

The Reformed Novus Ordo Calendar is extremely
cautious about respecting the principle of the consecration of time – for this
reason, there has been great emphasis on celebrating the Liturgy of the Hours
at the “canonical hours,” i.e. praying Morning Prayer in the morning and Evening
Prayer in the evening. It was this zeal to sanctify the day which lead the
Church to explicitly forbid the ancient practice of celebrating Morning Prayer
immediately after the Christmas midnight Mass (though it is perfectly
acceptable to pray Night Prayer after midnight on any day of the year).

Indeed, this great
concern of the now-a-days Church is particularly manifest at Christmas. For
example, while Canon Law allows a priest to celebrate three Masses on Christmas
day (CIC 951.1), the General Instruction of the Roman Missal clarifies that
this permission is given “provided that the Masses are celebrated at their
proper times of day” (GIRM 204) – three Masses on Christmas, but they must be
at midnight, at dawn, and during the day (we are left to wonder what happens if
the papal midnight Mass begins at 10pm).

However, with all this
focus on the sanctification of time, the reformed plan of the Novus Ordo calendar simply butchers the
season of Christmas – and follows this by the destruction of Epiphanytide.

The twelve days of Christmas

Msgr. Charles Pope has
written a good article on the havoc wreaked on the Christmas Octave by the
Liturgical Renewal. The feast of the Holy Family (which is a recent invention
to begin with) has been transferred to the Sunday which falls in the middle of
the Octave of Christmas –from its creation until 1962, Holy Family was
celebrated on the Sunday after Epiphany, but now that it has been moved into
the Christmas Octave we celebrate the hidden life of Christ (the flight to
Egypt and the return to Nazareth) before we even celebrate the visitation of
the Magi! The history of the events is displaced, and the time is far from
sanctified.

Then there is the
re-naming of the Octave of Christmas (January 1st) to “Mary, Mother
of God.” Here, I have less a problem than does Msgr. Pope – the character of
the Mass has been focused on our Lady’s Maternity from ancient times. However,
it is quite sad that the Circumcision and Naming of Jesus has been pushed aside
– how is it that, in our present day of sensitivity to the Jewish religion, the
Liturgical Reform has been so successful in helping us to forget that the Lord himself
was a practicing Jew?

Then, of course, there
is the horrible custom in so many parts of the world of transferring the
Epiphany from January 6th to the nearest Sunday – this destroys the
twelve days of Christmas. Even setting aside the fact that there is good reason
to believe that the Magi literally came to Bethlehem on the thirteenth day, the
transference of Epiphany is yet another example of losing the Judaic roots of
our Tradition – the Jewish significance of the number twelve is lost, and so is
the sanctification of time.

The Octave of Epiphany

Pius XII bears the
burden of the blame for the loss of Epiphanytide – for it was under his
pontificate that the Octave was abolished in 1955. However, Epiphanytide was
able to hobble on until the Liturgical Renewal, inspired by the spirit of
Vatican II, transferred the Baptism of the Lord.

In the traditional calendar
the Baptism of the Lord is celebrated on the Octave of the Epiphany, January 13th.
The reason for this is not that Christ was baptized on that day, but to connect
the Baptism with the Epiphany – falling on the Octave day, it is clear that the
Baptism of the Lord is a second Epiphany (as has been held since the earliest
days of the Church). In fact, there is good reason to believe that Christ was baptized
on January 6th, exactly thirty years after he was adored by the Magi
(this is the opinion of Gueranger, following the tradition of the Fathers
and Doctors). Nevertheless, the primary significance of celebrating the Baptism
of the Lord on the Octave of the Epiphany is the theological connection between
these two feasts. [The Feast of the Holy Family which traditionally falls on the Sunday
in the Octave of the Epiphany, reminds us that (in a wonderfully ironic way) Epiphanytide
commemorates the whole of Christ’s hidden life.]

Thanks to the Liturgical
Renewal, however, the Baptism of the Lord has been moved to the first Sunday
after Epiphany. This year, the feast fell on January 9th – a date
that has absolutely no significance in relation to the feast. We can admit (tongue
in cheek) that the USCCB and other conferences of bishops have “saved” Epiphanytide by simply transferring
Epiphany to the Sunday, thereby ensuring that the “Octave” is kept between the first
and second Sundays after January 1st – while they’re it, perhaps
they will consider restoring the Octave of Pentecost … maybe there is some room somewhere in Ordinary Time.

A disappointing start to Ordinary Time

After struggling through
Christmastide, and dragging herself past the Baptism, the faithful and devout
soul now comes to the season of Ordinary Time (Tempus per Annum). And what text of Holy Scripture has the Church,
in her wisdom, given upon which the soul might meditate and find nourishment? The
Baptism of the Lord, again!

Indeed, in year A (in which
we now are), we have another account of the Baptism of the Lord – the story
we heard last Sunday, but this time told by John the Evangelist (or the
Johannine Community, as he is now named). In year B, we hear of John the
Baptist’s sending the first apostles to Jesus. Finally, in year C, we read the
miracle accomplished at the wedding feast at Cana.

What is particularly terrible
about this reform of the Lectionary is that the miracle of the changing of
water into wine at Cana has always been considered a “third Epiphany.” Yet, in
the Novus Ordo, the connection between
Cana and the Epiphany is nearly lost (being retained, almost by accident, in
year C only).

In the Traditional Mass,
the Cana Epiphany is commemorated on the Sunday immediately after the Baptism
of the Lord – thus the three Epiphany’s are kept together.

Let’s end with something beautiful

Here are a most
beautiful Epiphany antiphon (maintained even in the Novus Ordo) and hymn.

17
comments:

Nick, You will notice that the article begins with a quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger ... I suspect that the Holy Father is doing all in his power to rectify the situation in a pastoral way. Thanks for the encouragement. Let's keep Benedict in our prayers. Blessings to you.

Very good post. Msgr Bugnini and his "expert" committees convinced the popes over the many years that discarding 1400 years of Catholic practice was a good thing. Regarding this posting, the last Sundays after the Epiphany were often transferred to the last Sundays after Pentecost depending on the date of Easter, and Ratzinger has also pointed out that the Gospels for these Sundays deal with seeds, and as anyone who knows anything about farming knows that seeding can be done in the Fall as well as the Spring making these Gospels very relevent to the order of nature and its seasons at the proper time. And what happened to the ancient seasonal Ember days? Were they to difficult for modern man to observe? For me, perhaps the most mistaken de-forming of the ecclesiastical year is that now we are meant to go cold turkey on our Lenten sacrifices rather than have the 3 ancient pre-Lenten Sundays (Septuagesima etc) to prepare us for this so as to make a holy Lent..... I think the new calendar should be revisited and corrected according to Church tradition.

It is sad that the Church moved many a fixed holy day strictly for the convenience of the laity "so they will not sin by missing Mass at an inconvenient time for them". So much for any form of sacrifices for the Lord these days! The article was most appropriate and was a recent topic of discussion in my family.We try as much as possible to follow the 1962 Liturgical Calendar.

"Nevertheless, the primary significance of celebrating the Baptism of the Lord on the Octave of the Epiphany is the theological connection between these two feasts. [The Feast of the Holy Family which traditionally falls on the Sunday in the Octave of the Epiphany, reminds us that (in a wonderfully ironic way) Epiphanytide commemorates the whole of Christ’s hidden life.]"

Father, I am familiar with idea that the Epiphany of the Son is the Epiphany of the Father. Is this what you are referring to when stating that there is a theological connection between the traditional feasts of Ephiphanytide? I hope I'm making sense.

@Cordelia,You are correct about the Epiphany of the Son being that of the Father -- "he who sees me sees the Father" ... however, my main point here is that the Baptism is an Epiphany of Christ just as much as the visitation/adoration of the Magi is an Epiphany of Christ. The Lord was manifested to the Magi by the star and by the inner movement of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the Magi; likewise at the Jordan, the Lord is made manifest to all (publicly) by the descent of the Holy Spirit and the voice of the Father.

The "wonderful irony" I mention is simply the fact that the Octave of Epiphany (the octave of the feast of the "manifestation" of Christ) is focused entirely on the hidden life of Jesus, about which almost nothing at all has been made manifest. It seems to be a most beautiful example of the Lord's mirth. (this is maintained only in the pre-1970 calendar)

btw, I really loved your article about the Nativity set which you posted at CatholicPhoenix.com (December 28) -- I had meant to post a comment, but things just got too busy at my parish. I thought about it several times during Christmastide, it really made me smile!

Kate, Thank you for continuing to read NTM. As I am sure you noticed, in my article I linked to your very good article on "Holy Family"; I hope that you do not mind.

Regarding whether these changes will happen soon...I suppose you are correct, we will have to wait a very long time for the changes to happen.Personally, I don't think that the new "changes" are too big of a deal -- after all, they only make a difference for the english speaking world.Nevertheless, I still think that the changes will not happen any time soon precisely because of the Holy Father's views -- Benedict seems to want to take change very very slowly, and this means that even the good changes that need to happen will have to happen very slowly and organically. It is something which can be frustrating (because part of me would like to see it all fixed right now), but I do admit that the Holy Father has a good point -- it was rapid change that got us into this mess, but it will be slow and organic change that will get us out.

Reginald, Sorry to change the nature of the conversation but I have some issues which require your opinion. A very naive seminarian who is easily led by the winds of opinion, is abandoning reading of the Fathers and disdaining them due to an attack on Peter Lombard and "teaching in a School"by his Sacramental theology lecturer. This lecturer insists we should do an exegesis on obscure Eucharistic prayers to learn the sacraments including Baptism and Confirmation. He also can be rude in exams. How should I guide this poor soul who has been taken in. On another topic have you heard of Yavis ministry and what do you think of this type of ministry? It is popular at my college. Even good men become very caught up in it.

When we speak about the reform of the calendar (and though this could spill over to other liturgical areas, we will just stick with the calendar), what do you think of the motivation behind the reforms? As you pointed out, various liturgical reforms were taking place in the years preceding the Council, e.g. Pius XII. Could you be discounting the motivations behind the changes too lightly?

The Council Fathers obviously had liturgical experiences during the course of their lifetimes and, of course, were guided by the Holy Spirit with the desire to reform the liturgical year. That being the case, should we not give some deference to the commission (and the commission given to them by the Magisterium) that reformed the calendar? Could one not also say that the reform itself was an organic result of almost 2000 years of liturgical formation, albeit, the reform took place in a very abrupt and sudden way, during a time when the formation of all Catholics was also in flux.

Your thoughts please.

p.s.—As for NACER, you should relegate your own issues to sitting around in a sharing circle and personal posts on Facebook.

Thank you for your kind reply. I am sorry to have ruined your serious conversation. It will be a great relief to you to know that I will never post again on this website after thanking you. I suspect that it will simply make Reginaldus laugh as he will know it is not a serious question. There is clearly no room for any frivolity here, and any frivoulous posts should clearly be dealt with in a quick fashion. I am glad your postscript was so charitably addressed. I am not on Facebook anymore however as it is a true waste of time. Goodbye and God Bless The Former Poster Formerly Known as NACER

I just want to bring up one counter point with respect to the proposition that moving the feast of the Holy Family destroys the timeline of the Christmas narrative. The events recalled on the Feast of the Holy Innocents, which remains on the 28th, are also chronologically after the appearance of the Magi.

However, I would respond that the feast of the Holy Innocents is closer to the feast of John the Evangelist or of Thomas Becket, than to the Ascension or the Baptism of the Lord or the Holy Family.

Let me explain -- St. Stephen is the day after Christmas although he was many years after the Epiphany.The point is this: saints' feast days are not meant to present a chronology of the Lord's life. However, the movement from Christmas to the Baptism of the Lord is about the chronology of Christ's life. This is why moving the feast of Holy Family has done much to destroy the Christmas season.

Hence, there is no real comparison between the feast of the Holy Innocents and the feast of Holy Family (regarding the date of the feast).

Reform of the calendar didn't happen during the Council but few years after it and it was led by Bugnini and the so called experts who ruined liturgy. Since the reform ITSELF is not done during the Council i have no fear in claiming it lacks Divine Inspiration...

We also can see the fruits of the reform. There are more bad fruits than those that are good...sadly..If fruits of Holy Spirit are bad then we're in big trouble...

As a convert from Protestantism, the NO calender simply reeks of things protestant. It's like having a 100 watt bulb on in a small closet - those of us who have come from "those side of the tracks" see it readily. We know that there were several Protestant ministers on the reform committees during Vatican II's changes to the liturgy and ordination rite. Unfortunately, when the Church starts basing itself on the "protestant way", in time, all will be made redundant. We can see this in the severe falling away of the faithful and the ignorance of so many that still remain - Catholics have, in essence, almost ceased to be Catholic. Her culture is dead, or practically dead... Thank God that we still have the TLM!